Gender Issues

From which today’s QOTD was taken. Debunks the trumped-up statistical survey on which one of the current campus-rape scandal-stories is based. (I assume that Miss LeFauve’s story eviscerating the reported “study,” which Mr. Morrissey cites and which is NOT TO BE MISSED, as it covers quite a bit more ground than Mr. Morrissey’s précis, is accurate. –Nowadays I feel obliged to include that as a standard caveat, since so much on all sides of various aisles turns out to be full of mouldy Swiss cheese or worse.)

Let’s start this topic with the latest in a long series of debunked claims resulting from studies that are later discovered to be either incompetently conducted or flat-out fraud. Reason’s Linda LeFauve dismantles one of the key bases for the supposed epidemic of “rape culture” on college campuses, a study published in 2002 by University of Massachusetts-Boston professor David Lisak. This study, LeFauve notes, has informed current White House policies on Title IX enforcement [pdf] as well as documentaries and books on the subject of college rape. It had at least an indirect impact on Rolling Stone’s debunked UVA campus rape hoax from last December.

It’s also based on shoddy research and deception [pdf, Lisak, "Statement to U.S. Civil Rights Commission...] , as LeFauve discovered when researching the study. Despite claiming to have conducted the research himself, Lisak actually derived it from student theses on another topic entirely — adult survivors of child abuse, using non-random samples mainly consisting of UMB employees and non-resident students:….

David Lisak’s serial predator theory of campus rape has made him a celebrity. Once a virtually unknown associate professor at the University of Massachusetts-Boston, his work is now cited by White House officials and reporters for major newspapers.

His influence is evident in the recent documentary The Hunting Ground, and the producers continue to promote his work along with their film. In Jon Krakauer’s new book, Missoula, about sexual assault at the University of Montana, Lisak’s name appears more than 100 times.

Share this:

Like this:

[TRIGGER WARNING: The following blog post contains irony and may be triggering for special little snowflakes]

A student group has been accused of sexism and racism for banning all men and white people from attending an equality event.

Goldsmiths University student union have been slammed after refusing to allow anybody that isn’t a non-white female from attending the event – organised to protest against inequality and celebrate racial unity.

Just when I thought the legions of Social Justice Warriors (aka SJW’s) couldn’t get any worse, they keep proving me wrong. It’s a bit like the old adage, “If you make something idiot proof, god will just make a better idiot”.

Share this:

Like this:

I’m sure we’ve all heard about the bogus statistics touted by Radical Feminists about 1-in-5 college students being raped and thought “That’s bullshit”, but as good rationalists, who prefer to make their arguments based upon evidence, didn’t have up-to-date data on which to reject the Rad Fem narrative.

Well – the US Department of Justice have recently published updated data and even with the distortions of modern rape reporting basically says “That’s bullshit”.

A new report on sexual assault released today by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) officially puts to bed the bogus statistic that one in five women on college campuses are victims of sexual assault. In fact, non-students are 25 percent more likely to be victims of sexual assault than students, according to the data. And the real number of assault victims is several orders of magnitude lower than one-in-five.

The full study, which was published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a division within DOJ, found that rather than one in five female college students becoming victims of sexual assault, the actual rate is 6.1 per 1,000 students, or 0.61 percent (instead of 1-in-5, the real number is 0.03-in-5). For non-students, the rate of sexual assault is 7.6 per 1,000 people.

Actual rape is a terrible crime which I condemn utterly, but the divisive way that Rad Fem’s are using rape to push their false narrative of rape culture is quite literally tearing Western society apart, to such an extent that even when actual rapes occur and a woman’s life is destroyed, a growing portion of the male population is increasingly suspicious, due to the “Cry Wolf” problem.

College reactions to criticism and political interference from the Obama Whitehouse are only exacerbating matters, specifically when you have “targets for dealing with on campus rape” and it is already in reality as rare as hens teeth, you inevitably end up creating a McCarthyist environment in which all males are treated with suspicion and College Kangaroo Courts hold inquiries which would put Stalin to shame.

If this continues, then we will see US Colleges, which are already overwhelmingly female, become virtual deserts of male presence, some of which is exacerbated by the ever increasing costs of a US university education and the fact that there are far more programs and scholarships available to women and especially minority women than there are men.

Is this how the US finally goes into decline, because of a false narrative proposed by people like Anita Sarkeesian and supported by the Obama Whitehouse? Will the 2020′s return segregation to the US in the form of mandated male and female colleges?

Share this:

Like this:

The often attacked British press is, in reality, one of the glories of this country. In the United States the normal pattern is for there to be a single dominate newspaper in a town or city and for it to reflect the “liberal” left ideology of the education system (the “Schools of Journalism” and so on) – with, by and large, the only choices being to read the leftist line, presented as “objective, scientific, journalism” or read no newspaper. There is the New York Post, which gives an alternative view of New York and other matters, and the financial and business newspaper the Wall Street Journal (both owned by Rupert Murdoch – which is why the totalitarian left hate him, as he is basically all that stands in their way of gaining a leftist monopoly in the press), but there is little other dissent. Just as on television basically the only dissent from the leftist line is “Fox News” (also owned by Mr Murdoch) with all other television stations reflecting the leftist line.

In the United Kingdom things are very different. There are many newspapers on the left – such as the “I” and the “Independent” and the “Guardian” and the “Daily Mirror” and the “Financial Times” (anyone who thinks a financial and business newspaper can not be on the left has never met the “FT”), but there are also many newspapers on the “right” (in the conservative or old style liberal sense – not the socialist Fascist sense) – such as the “Daily Telegraph”, the “Express”, the “Daily Mail” and the “Sun”. However, annoying the press may be at times this diversity in the press is one of the glories of this country and people who hate it are like people who hate the Queen or Winston Churchill – they really hate Britain.

The left, at least the totalitarian left, seek constantly to destroy the free press in the United Kingdom. For example with the financial backing of, son of Fascist leader Sir Oswald Mosley, Max Mosley (who won a libel case against being accused of being involved in a Nazi themed prostitute event – although he was involved in a Nazi themed prostitute event, work-that-one-out), the left ran a campaign against the newspapers. The left also used a claim in the Guardian newspaper that employees of the Sun newspaper had deleted messages on a murdered girl’s mobile telephone (a claim that turned out to be FALSE – they did “hack” the telephone, in the hope of getting information that would help them crack the case, but they did NOT delete any messages) to get Prime Minister Cameron’s government to impose some censorship on the press. “Hacking” mobile telephones was already illegal (and was done at least as much by Daily Mirror people as by Sun people – but the left does not care about that), and the new censorship rules will not make “hacking” any more illegal – but the left’s objective is censorship, the case of the murdered little girl was just a means-to-an-end to the totalitarian left. And Mr Cameron went along with some of what they wanted (partly because he was embarrassed at employing a person who had once been involved in telephone “hacking” himself) – and he should be ashamed of that.

It should be pointed out that the “Sun” and the, now closed down,”News of the World” are-were Rupert Murdoch newspapers. The leftist campaign against them was nothing to do with them “hacking” telephones more than the leftist “Daily Mirror” people did (they did not “hack” more than Daily Mirror people did) – it was a way of attacking Mr Murdoch, whom (as I have already pointed out) the left see as the main barrier in their way of creating a leftist monopoly in the media of the United States – yes the campaign in Britain was really, in part, about the United States.

However, evil never sleeps and the left have moved on. Far left activist groups have now pushed the management of Waitrose and Tesco supermarkets to physically cover up newspapers.

What exactly has the Tesco chain of supermarkets agreed to do? They have agreed to cover up all but the titles of newspapers that are on sale. The totalitarian leftist activist groups have claimed this will “protect” children (it is always “the children”) from seeing bare breasts. However, women with no tops on are a tradition of page THREE of the Sun newspaper – not the front page, there are no bare breasts on the front page (although there are bare breasts on show in art galleries – no doubt the totalitarian left will now try and get paintings and statues banned, at least if “the children” are their real concern……..).

The cat is let out of the bag by the boasts from the totalitarian left of getting “offensive” headlines covered up – not “just” photographs, HEADLINES.

This makes it clear what this campaign is really about – it is about suppressing, literally “covering up”, any OPINION the left does not like. It is the same sort of thing as the Frankfurt School of Marxism “Political Correctness” or “Critical Theory” that now dominates the education system – turning students into brainwashed zombies who will not tolerate any non “Progressive” opinions.

The evil groups behind the censorship of the press campaign are tiny – organisations such as “Child’s Eyes” and “Stop Page Three” have few members, they could not win any elections. But they do not have to enforce their totalitarian desires by winning elections – not when they are dealing with spineless cowards.

Tesco supermarkets, like so many corporations, is a bureaucracy without any real powerful individual share owners any more. The hired managers are responsible to other hired managers (at Pension Funds and so on – institutional share owners) and they basically want a “quiet life” – they have no passion for what they do, and they have no courage, no principles for which they will risk their jobs. Besides they are mostly ex university students – with all the leftist indoctrination (brainwashing) that a modern school and university “education” implies.

These hired managers at Tesco face ruthless leftist fanatics – who are prepared to do anything, anything at all, to enforce their desire for censorship, so the easy thing to do is to SUBMIT. And, besides, with their “educated” background a lot of the managers half agree with the leftist fanatics – with the totalitarian bullyboy (and bullygirl) censors.

It is difficult not to despair.

Share this:

Like this:

In 2012, Sophie Peeters moved to Brussels to undertake a film course and found herself shocked by the casual sexism and street harassment she encountered, to such an extent that she made a film about it “Femme De La Rue” (well what did you expect a film student to do? write a poem?)

In the film, she walks round her neighbourhood wearing jeans and a cardigan and then a knee-length summer dress and flat boots. A hidden camera shows that both times, men – from youths to groups of older men on cafe terraces – leer, cat-call and proposition her. She is called “whore”, “slut”, “bitch” and told that she looks up for sex. One man follows her saying she should come to his house or a hotel room. She says she gets this kind of comment eight to 10 times a day.

I will not attempt to condone or underplay the harassment she encounters and documents, as it is both genuine and repulsive, but as per typical in these sort of circumstances, the cries of “something must be done” becomes music to the ears of politicians on the make, especially in Belgium where they are still embarrassed by their inability to form a government after the 2010 elections.

So instead of saying to the local police commissioner “Oy! Matey. Do your bloody job” and clampdown on this unacceptable behaviour using the numerous existing laws on the statute books that these people are in breech of, they come up with the usual “all encompassing solution” which is like a sledgehammer to crack a nut and threatens massive intrusions into free speech that are already under attack. (more…)

Kurdish women are bad-ass. You’ll never guess why they’re the ones on the frontline’s against ISIS. Check this out…

The Kurds have adopted a rather unique strategy for not only eliminating their targets, but also humiliating them along the way.

According to WZ, Kurds are deploying whole units comprised of female fighters to the front line, which has boosted their recruitment numbers, and given them a psychological edge over ISIS. One female fighter explained why the Kurds have decided to put women in the thick of the battle, and it’s sure to make radical Islamists go crazy.

“The jihadists don’t like fighting women, because if they’re killed by a female, they think they won’t go to heaven.”

Nigh on 5000 US personnel have died* for the great task of enabling the freedom of preverts in Iraq to shag girls who haven’t had their first menstrual period. Eight year old girls want to play with dollies** and Lego and stuff. In my country (and the US and all the others) if you have sex with an eight year old girl you go to jail. You get put in the Sir Jimmy Saville Memorial Wing for a very long time. Rightly so.

Now don’t get me wrong. I am not a pacifist. If my land was under threat you’d have to drag me kicking and screaming from the seat of a Typhoon fighter. And, well everywhere I go I visit war memorials. I know my family members have killed and died so basically I can mooch around Europe without a rifle and bayonet. Now that was an appalling cost but it achieved something worthwhile. The legalisation of rape and kiddie-fiddling is not such a cause. It is not one for me or any right thinking person to get their boots on for.

And what right-minded person wants to have sex with a girl that age anyway? Utter sick bastards. They require treatment. I prescribe two spoons and a rusty farming implement. I mean if you don’t and can’t regard the man or woman you have sex with as an equal with absolute agency then what is the point?

We have enabled utter barbarism at the cost of billions of dollars and thousands of lives either wiped out or maimed.

Or to misquote from the end speech at the end of the movie “300″, “We haven’t – at enormous financial, material and human cost singularly failed to ‘rescue a World from mysticism and tyranny’”.

*And a load of Brits and others and God knows how many wounded. And I have recently been watching Prince Harry taking a team of wounded soldiers across the Antarctic. Good on the fella but the wounds are tragic. On folks so young. It is heartbreaking.

**There is a very specific reason I mention this. Aisha was 8 when married to the middle-aged Muhammed.

Share this:

Like this:

I had an interesting conversation with my friend Jon in the UK the other day, in which he sat down to have a heart-to-heart with his nephew and essentially told him “Don’t get married“.

Although this was in the context of a particular, rather neurotic young lady, his argument was in a wider sense that it is no longer in the rational self interest of a man to enter into marriage with any women as the consequences of making a bad decision are catastrophic for both parties, but more so financially and emotionally for the man due to the inherent bias of Western divorce laws.

Imagine the scenario, a guy studying at a university asks his professor not to share study groups with any females (why? “because…penis”, obviously). This being a university in a modern western democracy obviously he was told “No”, because that would be sexist, and obviously no male, liberal college professor is going to risk his tenure against the massed hoards of feminists that exist in pretty much every western university.

The problem comes when the student says “because I’m a Muslim”, then all of a sudden the whole liberal ideology comes crashing down around their ankles because two pets of liberalism (feminism and Islam) are now crashing together with their respective demands.

Now, fair play to Professor Paul Grayson of York University in Toronto, because he told the student “No” straight out and in fairness to the student he said “Oh, OK”. The fun part is that the university itself is now telling the Professor that it is not okay and he has to respect the students religious beliefs.

Cue rapidly escalating liberal apocalypse as the inherent contradictions of their support for feminism comes into direct conflict with Muslim totalitarianism, chickens coming home to roost seems an apt metaphor.

Sex attacker is confronted by his victim in Kenyan court… a female GOAT (and he is jailed a record ten years for ‘defiling’ it)

defiling the goat? He’s not precisely covered himself in glory has he either? I mean it might have been a very attractive goat – to other goats but… it’s a goat.

A man who was jailed for 10 years for having sex with a female goat came face-to-face with his victim in a Kenyan court.

The goat watched quietly from the corner of the court room in Malindi while Katana Kitsao Gona, 28, was jailed for bestiality.

I’m really not sure about this story. It is quite possibly the first time he came (oh, er missus!) face to face with said beast. My vague understanding (and I could be very wrong) is the only critters who have sex face-to-face are humans and bonobos. Personally I don’t think he ought to have got chokey. Surely the stare of the goat* and his naming and shaming is enough? I mean that happened a few years back to a bloke from Hull who was caught molesting a goat by a railway line. He was fined (the goat was deemed OK by police vets) rather than ten years in the tank but his career was ruined. He was a chef. Well, who is going to employ a chef who sodomizes goats? And it is sodomy by pretty much any rational definition. Call me odd and all but sex with another human regardless of gender is like whatever. Shagging a goat is basically not OK. Do I have to explain why? And why the Mail has to state prominently that it was a female goat is beyond me. I suppose you just shouldn’t shag the nanny.

Anyway, on with this tale of utter depravity…

According to Jimmy Kimaru, chief prosecutor, Gona was caught sexually assaulting the goat in a bush.

It really doesn’t get better than that. Some of us dream of Brad Pitt or Keira Knightley on a Caribbean beach and some of us fuck goats in the backwoods of Kenya. Admittedly a female goat but quite frankly that doesn’t make a quantum of WTF to me. And why did this vile crime happen?

Gona, who pleaded guilty, told the court his wife is disabled and depends on him daily. Despite this, the judge jailed him for a record 10 years for ‘defiling’ the animal.

Well, as I said before some crimes are in a sense their own punishment. This is a very libertarian stance. Would you employ the goat-fucker of Malindi? No and neither would I. If you were his wife would you not seek a divorce? Obviously you would! There is not a court on the planet that would deny you. I mean an affair with another human might be forgiven but screwing a goat in a bush is simply unforgivable.

And now we get onto arguably the meat of the deal. I think the Dr Who character of Captain Jack is interesting. He is frequently described as “bisexual” but he is is actually “omnisexual” and I think calls himself that. So why does that matter here? He fancies males and females of every bipedal, thinking, speaking race in the Universe. OK, I’m fine with that but a goat is different. What is clever about Captain Jack is a couple of things. The first is there is very little hint in Dr Who of interspecies pregnancies (I’m gonna get called on that) and in that respect it is much more on the biological money than Star Trek (score one for the Brits!) but it acknowledges that sex is not just about procreation. And it acknowledges another thing. If one accepts that (and some don’t) then you have to face a tricky question and Captain Jack answers it very well. He is prepared to fancy different species so therefore he can’t see gender as that important. I think that is interesting. Obviously Captain Jack would never fuck a goat but he kissed both The Doctor and Rose. I guess what I’m getting at is that interspecies sex is acceptable in a fantasy setting (think Beren and Luthien) iff (not an sp) the species are roughly comparable and able to give informed consent and stuff. In short an Elven princess is one thing and a goat is quite, quite different.

Seeing as there is a species difference either way I’m not entirely sure if I can make a solid point here and I have to just really on the “yuk” factor to a certain extent here but… let’s face it making love to Arwen in the Royal Bedchamber of Minas Tirith beats the Hellskis out of goat-fucking in a bush in Kenya.

Pretty much anything beats that. The last time I had a filling beats that.

*Goats have nasty stares. I recall an incident on a Greek island in the ’90s when I was surrounded by goats and the leader of the pack – a big billy with horns poised at my scrotum gave me a vile stare. I thought it about to charge and de-bollock me but then the goatherd turned-up. I have rarely if ever been more pleased with a Greek fellow entering stage left. I had also accidentally nearly troden on a snake about ten minutes before which was seriously nonplussed. Beautiful island but full of things that wanted to kill me.

Share this:

Like this:

When Leif Ericson’s pregnant half-sister Freydís Eiríksdóttir was in Vinland, she is reported to have taken up a sword, and, bare-breasted, scared away the attacking Native Americans. The fight is recounted in the Greenland saga, though Freydís is not explicitly referred to as a shieldmaiden in the text.

Jebus wept! A pregnant half-naked Viking woman charging you with a sword. I’d run away. And do it screaming like a 1D fan. That one must have been emotional. And yeah I’d well call her a shieldmaiden.

The idea that women can’t or don’t fight is bizarre. Anyone who feels that way ought to have met some of my ex-girlfriends or Freydis with her tits out and a sword in hand. No, my domestics never got quite that dramatic. We had knives or hammers at extremis but that was all.

But by buggery, charging bare-breasted with a sword. Respect!

That is fucking top quality. It really is.

I have done questionable things. What I haven’t done is ran like a total mentalist with my 34Ds out whilst wielding a sword.

Share this:

Like this:

Further to SaoT’s “not a debate” thread (which I have no issue with) and referring in particular to the last sentence of Robert Edwards’ comment:

The sad truth is that some birds are, as you say, ‘easier on the eye’ than others, so good luck to them; it must be q. rough being a munter, but those are the breaks, I’m afraid…

I’m afraid I can’t let Robert’s gauntlet lie unmolested.

You see, I’m no oil painting. Neither are most of the women in my family. We are all Plain Janes and therefore, if you accept Robert’s point of view, munters. We do, however, possess brains, personality and, in the main, senses of humour. We are also, by and large, with a slight emphasis on the large in my case, successful. I don’t feel, or have ever felt, hard done by in the looks department. Despite the lack of visually stunning facial attributes I still managed to bag a successful man. A design engineer in fact. We have a comfortable, if modest life together, we live in a nice area and after almost thirty years of marriage he still treats me like the sun shines out of my every orifice. The lack of any kind of easy on the eye beauty ideal has never held me back so no, it isn’t q. rough being a munter.

I was a beautiful baby and have the pics to prove it. However, I didn’t live up to the early promise. Never gave it a second thought because you see, I could beat the pants off the pretty, giggly girly girls when it came to smarts. Boys, make-up and fashion have never featured on my conversational radar because I would much sooner watch paint dry. Like the bulk of the female population I don’t envy good looks and I’m of the opinion that if you’ve got it then why not flaunt it. And, as Robert says, good luck to those who do. If they want to decorate some bloke’s arm or use their physical attributes to sell goods or catch a well to do hubby then go for it and go for it hard because there is a shelf life to beauty unless you want to go the way of the scalpel. Smarts last a hell of a lot longer.

I’ve seen pretty girls bed hop like sex crazed frogs in the hope of catching the man of their dreams. It never seemed to quite work out for them and all they got was a rep for being easy; popular but not wifely material. I never had to do that to catch a bloke but it isn’t because I’m a munter and no one ever asked me. I wouldn’t lower myself. In fact I feel sorry for the lasses who believe they have to flit from bloke to bloke in order to work their way up the social ladder. I got there through sheer hard graft and using my noggin. My significant other half came along later. However it was my well fitted uniform skirt over suspenders (it was bloody hot in the summer of 1976) that initially snagged him. Right after I nicked him for speeding…

I might be a munter in the eyes of some but I’m not some hairy-lipped, envious as hell, face that sucked a thousand lemons femiloon. I scorn the harridans who dictate how a gorgeous lass should behave. How very dare they vilify any woman with the guts to strut her stuff. They should give us all a break, STFU and go shave their armpits.

Having said that I have a confession to make.

If some fairy godmother popped up and offered to make me easy on the eye as well a keep my intelligence I’d jump at it. Who wouldn’t want the best of both worlds? However, if the same FG offered beauty at the expense of 25% of my IQ I’d tell her where to stick her wand. You see I prize intelligence more than looks. As for todays female role models – gawd help us! I’ll never be inspired by or aspire to be a Cheryl Cole, a Jordan or a WAG. The very idea of living a life like that leaves me cold. I’d sooner put out my eyes than read about them or watch them. They have no interest for me. I’m far more interested in politics, science, shooting clay and off-roading.

Being a munter is no bar to ambition. All you need to do is look at Charlie Jug-ears’ squeeze. She might look rough but that didn’t stop her hooking the heir to the throne.

Being plain ordinary isn’t a burden. Lacking the ability to turn heads never killed me nor turned me into an envious bitch. My existence isn’t rough by any stretch of the imagination. Munter is just a name. I shall wear it with pride because I had to fight for what I have. It didn’t get offered to me because I have perky boobs and a face that the Royal Navy could use to supplement their depleted fleet. If individuals need to pigeonhole me as a munter because nature didn’t grace me with a certain type of physiology then it says more about them than about me. I inhabit the middle ground, a place between stunning and munter. And let me tell you, it’s bloody crowded.

Share this:

Like this:

She’s at it again! Diane Abbott flaps her gums and spews weapons grade bollocks. According to the headline she reckons that broken families, obesity and alcoholism are partly down to people like…erm…herself.

Scratches head. That can’t be right, can it?

Oh, wait, this is what she said…

Ms Abbott, the shadow public health minister, urged the left to recognise that problems such as obesity and alcoholism, often stem from such breakdown.

Or can be the cause of them perhaps? But let’s not let that little worm of a fact get in the way of HMS Titanic Diane as her hulk chugs magisterially into yet another iceberg of leftist folly. Let’s not forget stuff like this. The State runs its own lucarative sideline in busting up families because Nanny knows best and not always for the better.

Feminists should be able to talk about these issues and they should not be confined to the pages of women’s magazines, she argued.

That’s all we need, more vapid pedlars of leftist, man-hating, groupthink twaddle in the mainstream. Thanks, Diane.

She told The Guardian newspaper: “As a feminist, perhaps we have been ambivalent about families.

Actually, your party has done it’s level best to make sure that the State interferes in family life at the most basic level, usurping the authority of parents. What are you, Hatty and your legion of feministas going to say about that?

“In the 1980s, we used to say: ‘A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.’

That’s because you were, and still are, deeply stupid.

“The more academic version was: ‘The family is the site of women’s oppression.’ So those of us who came of age at the height of feminism had very mixed views about the family, since it seemed to be defined as a heterosexual thing with a certificate, children and mum at home.”

I come from a long line of working class women. They didn’t have the luxury of staying home and playing at happy families. They had to get off their arses and work hard as well as bring up the kids and run the home. They didn’t moan about oppression, they just got on with it. As a result they worked themselves out of poverty to the point where their descendants enjoy all the trappings of a middle class existence. But it didn’t stop there, Diane. We descendents still work hard because we want to keep what we’ve worked so hard for. We work to counter the tax everything and then tax it again spite your Labour rabble heaped upon us in the name of “fairness”. We don’t down tools and fuck off to some arty farty, women’s supplement to produce reams of snide shite about the sisters who refused to abandon their responsibilities.

But “some kind of stable family structure” was vital and was what most people want around them, she said, adding: “I do not think we should abandon that terrain to the right.”

But isn’t that exactly what you did? For bloody generations? Now all of a sudden the Right, when it comes to preserving the structure of the family, is no longer wrong because it suits your nu-puritan authoritarian agenda? You double-dyed, hypocritical sack of offal!

Ms Abbott also called for local authorities to be given greater powers to stop fried chicken shops and other fast food outlets from proliferating, and to stop alcohol from being sold cheaply, especially near schools.

Yes, because high street names like KFC and Micky D’s are destroyers of families everywhere. All you have to do is look through their propaganda covered windows and see families enjoying ripping themselves apart eating poison that the staff are forcing down their throats because no one in their right minds would do it by choice. After all, the kids should be eating healthy food so that they can remain thin and whip-like just like you, Diane.

As an aside, anyone advocating more power to government, local or otherwise, should be stewed for eternity in a vat of their own statist venom.

She claimed young people were not only eating fast food on a regular basis but that their lives were also being “saturated with porn and sex” to a much greater degree than children’s lives were two decades ago.

Wow, Diane’s on a roll! But where is the evidence for this porn “saturation”? We only get her big, fat lefty opinion. However, she has an answer to the problem. Oh, yes indeedy.

She called for tighter controls on children’s access to the internet to help tackle this.

Which, reading between the lines, means tighter access to the internet for everyone because…think of the cheeeeeldren! I think that sorely abused guilt horse is ready for the knackers yard because it’s plumb worn out.

Parents also had their own part to play, she argued, accusing some of being guilty of “McParenting,” compensating for a lack of parental responsibility by buying consumer goods for their children.

Because let’s NOT support the industries and workers who make such trinkets that people actually want? Because buying presents for our kids is evil and the worst kind of parental abuse and must be stamped out? What a load of McBollocks.

Instead of reading to their children or taking them to a library, such parents might be dressing their children in branded clothing and mistakenly believing they were fulfilling their parental duties in so, she said.

You could begin with removing the VAT from books and stop closing libraries. You could also stop encouraging the never have nor never will have a job underclass to produce kids they have no intention of working to keep.

At what point of buying children clothes they like does parental abuse/neglect begin? Or should everyone refrain from buying nice stuff for their kids because they don’t vote Labour Diane abused her own brat with buying him nice stuff and sending him to a private school and is now laying a lefty guilt trip on us by way of redemption? What frigging planet does this moron inhabit?

She starts off blaming the family busting femininist agenda yet somehow ends up blaming breakups on parents being nice to their kids. As a bonus she gets in wedges of the lefty ban everything we disapprove of agenda between the cracks. This shambolic piece of tosh is something we should pay attention to?

Oh Diane, you vacuous polisher of HoC bench leather, your nauseating stupidity that passes for righteous campaigning pollutes the air we all have to breathe. Can you please just stop?

Share this:

Like this:

I’m an IT tech*. I am 38. My wife is 33. I have a cat and he is a minor but a complete innocent (he doesn’t have any bollocks for a start) and certainly no interest in pr0n – or at least not what you or me would regard as pr0n – I dunno about you but the torture and killing of small mammals doesn’t do it for me. It does it for Timmy and he is only seven so clearly the TV and internet is to blame. The cute little sod.

Therefore to protect the children I don’t have I shall have my internet hobbled by the government unless I sign-up to the preverts registar. Now I am not really into ‘net pr0n – I’ve had a look, obviously, and so have you and it’s like whatever. In fact, truthfully, much of this has been intellectual curiosity – the categories that exist such as the truly stupifying ones like “ugly” intrigue me. Why? To the very limited extent that I like pr0n it’s tasteful images of very attractive naked women of the sort you find on Met Art or Domai that I like. Domai even has (or had) a positive review on it’s front-page from the Daily Telegraph which is enough to make a retired Colonel’s monocle pop-out. But so what? That is my kink (I am given to understand a not uncommon one and indeed nothing that would look out of place at the North End of Trafalgar Square) but that is not my point. As Ian B said recently if the photo shows an illegal act it is the act that ought to be illegal and not the photo. The photo of course ought to be gold-dust to those prosecuting the act itself – “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury can you deny it was the accused pictured here with a tub of vaseline, a gimp and a cocker spaniel?” As long as we all play nice (and no spies end-up dead in bags) and it is consensual (that doesn’t really include the dog) then we are adults and do adult things like have sex in all the myriad forms that takes (enough to blow Sigmund Freud’s eyebrows off! – Yeah he’s meant to be woo woo but he isn’t is he? I mean if you get off on potty-training then seek professional help and not my bed-chamber) and that is cool. I mean I once met in a club (Queen’s Court, Leeds) a gay bloke who only fancied straight men. He was good-humouredly bitterly amused at his predicament. Takes all sorts I guess.

So, what is wrong with this nonsense?

The first and most obvious thing is the assumption that because many households have children everyone must have censorship put upon them. But that is not really what it is about. Of course actually seeing in the flesh is fine (until the Republic of Gilead is established) but an image is something else (just out of interest – do they know how high they create the image?). The last lot who thought that had bones through their noses and thought photographs took their soul or something. Yet this is an acceptable form of policy discussion in Britain in The Century of the Fruitbat.

The second (and I am not hanging my hat on this peg – my objection is vastly more one of principle – but it must be noted) I always turn Google SafeSearch off. It is a crude tool and will block all sorts of things. I will give good odds that the government filter would make it difficult for gynecological cancer patients to access discussion forums etc because they involve “rude” words. It inconveniences me looking up stuff on graphics cards and fighter jets…

The third is the assumption that pr0n is “corrupting”. Is it really? I grew-up during the early eighties and the VCR revolution. I grew-up in the age during which pr0n didn’t exactly grow on trees but seemed by a process of abiogensis (as yet unexplained by science) to be readily found under hedges. Didn’t do me any harm. I even recall Jordan when she was a 34A. I thought she was well fit**. I think she was 17 at the time so call me a retroactive peado. But seriously nobody springs into life as a sexual adult upon the moment of their 16th birthday. For me (and I bet for you) there was seeing people in magazines and movies and thinking them foxy (and if you’re at all like me I bet you’re embarrassed by a lot of the ones you hada crush over in your callow youth – and yes, that applies just as much to female readers – perhaps more so – I remember the lasses in my year at school going mental over Bros. Sweet Jesus. They had the Grolsch bottle tops in their shoes and neckerchiefs and all. My mum, in her youth, was hit by Beatlemania but… Well, how very dare I compare that with Bros? And even my Mum said that whilst as a teen she liked Paul but on sober reflection she reckoned George was the looker. But anyway, isn’t being a kid about being a bit naughty? How else do you learn? Well, I guess there is “sex and relationships education” which sounds like enough to put anyone on the permanent slack. But whilst that is to do with sex it’s about as sexy as genital warts which are also to do with sex but not sexy. Unless you are into that sort of thing – somebody will be. God help them!

The fourth is that obviously if it’s pr0n today by a week on Tuesday all bets are off as to what else shall be banned. For our own good you understand. Again not a point I hang my titfer upon because whilst there is the thin end of a slippery slope here pr0n is worth defending in itself. It is not just a line in the sand (though it is) but important in it’s own right. That is the first principle of defending lines in the sand anyway. Defend each line because it itself matters. Not because abandoning might lead to tyranny. Tyranny will already be there anyway, waiting for us, in a ’70s gown, legs akimbo.

So it comes to the climax. Oh err missus! And it comes to this. I don’t really do pr0n because he has a wife you know. She has a vagina you know (of course she has – she’s a woman!). And indeed like tits and everything. So what earthly use is Pr0n if I have free access to Coke, not Pepsi (or indeed Shirley)? Well, I dunno! I suspect it adds to the general gaiety of nations. I mean anything banned in North Korea or Iran is good, right? I like pr0n in principle. I like attractive women getting their kit off. Now men doing the same… Well, I’m a liberal-type (unlike Hattie Harmann) so fine. There is a market. But what really winds me is this. At university I did a physics degree and a night-class in life-drawing. We had two models. One was a bloke and the other was a bird who looked like she had just walked out of the studio of a Pre-Raphaelite. Now, this was weird. I mean I tried to draw. And he was trickier than her (men are apparently) but what got me was this. I was a single(ish) heterosexual man and she was an extremely attractive naked female yet I had to wield my pencil, not my cock and what really got me was (a) how it was all done in the best possible taste (b) I almost took the job as a model but didn’t not because it was getting nekkid but because it was holding poses until your legs fell off and (c) the guy who ran the course was a postgrad art student and it was like this. I tried very hard to place on paper an image of this lovely lady (and also the bloke) but I have never felt more naked than when the bloke who ran it took a look at my drawing and said, “Keep trying!”. I actually felt more naked than she did! We just saw her body. He saw my soul. I mean she was just beautiful but was my rendering of her? Let me put it bluntly. At the end of the evening I would bundle-up my piccies and I would much rather get nekkid myself than show them to anyone. I think I did better with the geezer oddly enough.

And here is the point. Were those models exploited personally? No. Was it pr0n? Depends how one looks at it but I would say there was no difference. Really. Did it exploit? I can’t recall what I paid but the models were on like 7 quid an hour which was OK money at the time (I considered it – early ’90s) so is that an exploit? I think not. I think not because I didn’t feel an exploit was going on. It just felt nice. And by buggery – if I am to learn to draw then I guess someone has to get their kit off or it’s still-life’s of baskets of fruit (Imagine studying art in Tehran!). No. Almost the entire schtick of porno-phobia is not about the specific alleged exploitation of the models (we’d have a beer afters – that’s how exploited they were) but this bizarre generalization that it is every women who are obscurely exploited whether they chose to model nude or not. Despite the fact there was a male model too! Despite the fact the female model was perfectly happy. And despite the fact this wan’t pornography (though how does one define that?). No. If you ask me it comes down to one thing. There are women (and men) who people are prepared to pay good money to see in the nip. And there are men (and women) who are pig-ugly. Life is not fair. Certainly not to politicians. And they hate it because nobody will give ‘em 7 quid an hour to model. They have to ponce off the tax-payer instead and sit on moral high-horses. Purely because the populace is prepared to pay Eric Pickles and Tessa Jowell not to disrobe doesn’t mean we ought to be banned from seeing genuine lookers in the nip. That is why they think it generally immoral. ‘Cos they are ugly and they can only take a moral high-chair rather than get their tits out. I bet Pickles has bigger ones than Jowell, mind. That is a horrible thought.

*I have seen things on HDs you people would not believe… And no it wasn’t attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. The one that springs to mind was a video of a naked and heavily pregnant woman declaiming her own poetry. It was emotional. Oh, it was explicit alright but that is not the same as erotic. I had to ask for details because the presenting problem was a fucked IEEE1334 which to all intents, purposes and tastes – the tongue can be a diagnostic tool – had had marmalade jammed in it. It was flatly denied that any child had touched the machine despite the fact the disk also had a lot of Barney the Dinosaur on it. Really nice Acer laptop buggered by a kid. Either that or something unspeakable and dreadful had happened to it. I did re-jiggle the softwares so the performance art looked “OK” for a certain value of “OK” (reasonable raspberrys) but I don’t do hardware with laptops. There is no jam in it for me, so to speak. Perhaps the moral to this story (if there is one and there isn’t) is that kids probably do more harm to computers than vice-versa.

**In a kind of filthy shag, not date sense. That’s “filthy” in a good sense. Seeing as I was a spotty teen who was good at maths and all that it was all fairly hypothetical anyway. Obviously nowadays I wouldn’t touch her with a disinfected 36″ hitting stick. Though if Cate Blanchett and Uma Thurman decided to oil-wrestle on my living-room carpet…

Share this:

Like this:

According to The Guardian the greatest mystery of modern times has been solved by a cosmetic gynaecologist* from Florida. Yes, he has found the G-Spot of legend! The spot that launched a thousand Cosmos.

An aside: is it just me or are those magazines for ladies getting more bizarre in their sex “advice”. Cosmo or something claimed on it’s front cover recently to have discovered a load more sexual positions. Short of claiming to have re-jiggled human anatomy God alone knows how any of this is possible. I mean this is from the (in)famous Perfumed Garden written by a Grand Vizier for an Islamic Potentate way back…

SEVENTH MANNER-El kelouci (the somersault). The woman must wear a pair of pantaloons, which she lets drop upon her heels; then she stoops, placing her head between her feet, so that her neck is in the opening of her pantaloons. At that moment, the man, seizing her legs, turns her upon her back, making her perform a summersault; then with his legs curved under him he brings his member right against her vulva and, slipping it between her legs, inserts it.

It is alleged that there are women who, while lying on their back, can place their feet behind their head without the help of pantaloons or hands.

I think the second paragraph there is a bleg by the Vizier for funding for more field-work in India because it is mentioned this and other chiropractic delights are due to India where according to the author, “It is well for you to know that the inhabitants of those parts have multiplied the different ways to enjoy women, and they have advanced farther than we in the knowledge and investigation of coitus.”

Of course it was well known! It still is. It is one of the two central truths of sex that never go away. The first is the one hinted at here that girls from foreign climes are always dirtier. Whether it is performing the somersault without pantaloons or vaginally firing ping-pong balls in a Bangkok nightclub to the general hilarity of an Aussie stag party the grass is always greener on the other side of the verge. I shall quote Byron:

“What men call gallantry, and gods adultery, is much more common where the climate’s sultry.”.

The other thing that was ever thus (apart from vaginal intercourse which of course was ever thus or I wouldn’t be writing and you wouldn’t be reading this drivel) is the bizarre belief that every generation has that the stuffed-shirts of the older folks were never got off to get it on. Everyone remembers the “unamused” Queen Victoria rather than the one before Albert died and the very saucy letters they wrote to each other. I shall quote Larkin here:

“Sexual intercourse began in 1963 (which was rather late for me) – Between the end of the Chatterley ban and the Beatles first LP.”

Of course – and I have flicked through it once – DH Lawrence’s magnificent octopus is unreadable bilge and just isn’t sexy at all. Maybe it was for Lawrence but then he was a git.

Anyway, back to the G spot of myth and legend. Well to paraphrase an eminent Victorian there are lies, damnable lies, statistics and statistics about sex. Indeed “sexology” (he’s got an “‘ology” that makes him a scientist) is perhaps the shabbiest of alleged sciences. It is all made-up. De Sade, Sigmund Fraud, Alfred Kinsey, Alex Comfort – the whole lot of them said more about themselves than about anything else. I suspect it is down to the use of surveys which are generally misleading (or leading). I’m tempted to write a sex-book myself. Find someone you fancy (and who fancies you) and just you know make it up as you go along. Right! Done that! And you know what. That’s also the fun way to learn. On the job so to speak. Not reading bloody Kinsey! I mean even educated fleas can manage it.

Anyway…

Ostrzenski, a cosmetic gynaecologist and director of the Institute of Gynecology in St Petersburg, Florida, examined the anterior vaginal wall in the body of a deceased 83-year-old woman and, as the New Scientist reported, found “a clearly defined sac in a layer between the vagina and the urethra close to the perineal membrane”. The sac, furthermore, was “around 16 millimetres from the upper part of the urethral opening” positioned at a 35 degree angle, and “less than a centimetre long”. Inside, Ostrzenski discovered a “‘worm-like’ structure with three distinct regions that broadly ‘resemble erectile tissue – normally found in areas such as the clitoral body’”.

That is class science that is! I mean New Scientist is a vile rag (I always preferred Scientific American until that too dumbed down to the level of an eight year old). Do I need to point out the methodological flaws here? I don’t think so. Anyway Ms Barton of the Guardian witters on to no apparent purpose** for several hundred words further…

I suspect personally that the G spot is a semi-myth. There is something that feels a bit different roughly where it’s meant to be but I’ve never found it opened the gates of female sexual paradise. Maybe it does for some but they are all of course in other countries where the climate is sultry and undoubtedly having wild swinging from chandeliers sex with (or maybe even without!) pantaloons.

*Think of it as extreme vajazzaling. Actually this is possibly untrue and I suspect The Graun is incorrect in it’s use of “cosmetic”.
**Much like most searches for the G spot. Or to use the technical term a “frigmarole”.

Counting Cats (CC) was taken to task by several other commenters for being too squeamish and perhaps even morally neutral about who are the good guys and who are the bad guys here. While I don't share CC's reaction to the video, I rejoice in his (her?) existence. What kind of a world would it be if people like CC didn't exist or if they had to hide their views? Who knows, we might all be living in something akin to Somalia.
...
CC's civilized response is precisely why our military is a force for good in the world.